Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0a2bfdeb-482c-14cb-fbd6-fbfe685cd349@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack (Arthur Zakirov <zaartur@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add pg_file_sync() to adminpack
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/01/24 15:38, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > On 2020/01/24 14:56, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:28:29PM +0900, Arthur Zakirov wrote: >>> It is compiled and passes the tests. There is the documentation and >>> it is >>> built too without an error. >>> >>> It seems that consensus about the returned type was reached and I >>> marked the >>> patch as "Ready for Commiter". >> >> + fsync_fname_ext(filename, S_ISDIR(fst.st_mode), false, ERROR); >> One comment here: should we warn better users in the docs that a fsync >> failule will not trigger a PANIC here? Here, fsync failure on heap >> file => ERROR => potential data corruption. > > Ah, true. It is possible to add couple sentences that pg_file_sync() > doesn't depend on data_sync_retry GUC and doesn't raise a PANIC even for > database files. Thanks all for the review! So, what about the attached patch? In the patch, I added the following note to the doc. -------------------- Note that <xref linkend="guc-data-sync-retry"/> has no effect on this function, and therefore a PANIC-level error will not be raised even on failure to flush database files. -------------------- Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: